Just a thought

Obama is going around telling these companies what they can and can't do and the justification is that they recieved federal money and there are strings attached.

Why should it stop there? In all actuality, these companies did not recieve federal money. The federal government only acted as a middle man and the money really came from the Chinese. Doesn't all this borrowing from the Chinese give them the right to tell the US what they can and can't do, by the same logic Obama has put forward?

"Socialism is not the correct descriptor for what Obama and the Democrats are doing. They are going to be much more far reaching than anything Sweden has ever been able to do. Obama is following Alinskyâs plans, those set out in âRules for Radicalsâ and his other writing. The Democrats are attempting to create one party rule in the U.S. and in achieving that, will create crisis after crisis by their own actions and use those crisis to nationalize the means of production in the U.S. You are in the middle of a communist revolution and few in the U.S. can actually see it for what it truly is.

The U.S. . is now on the path of financial destruction. The Constitution has been shredded and individual human rights are being trampled. In less than 8 months. Obama has used a recession to take over the two largest industries in the U.S. He will debase the Dollar and is on the road to creating an incredible energy shortage that will allow him and Congress to take over the energy industry."

Obama is going around telling these companies what they can and can't do and the justification is that they recieved federal money and there are strings attached.

Why should it stop there? In all actuality, these companies did not recieve federal money. The federal government only acted as a middle man and the money really came from the Chinese. Doesn't all this borrowing from the Chinese give them the right to tell the US what they can and can't do, by the same logic Obama has put forward?

Its just a thought.

More...

Oh come on now, a bit of a stretch. To that same end, why not just let the Chinese pay for health care for everyone, no sweat off of us, right?

If our group helps a start up company, I demand that the people running the company make little or nothing to begin with. If they want our money, they follow certain rules. However, the American investor is duped when buying IPO's and even common stock. They basically give the officers carte blanche to pay themselves whatever they want.

Oh come on now, a bit of a stretch. To that same end, why not just let the Chinese pay for health care for everyone, no sweat off of us, right?

If our group helps a start up company, I demand that the people running the company make little or nothing to begin with. If they want our money, they follow certain rules. However, the American investor is duped when buying IPO's and even common stock. They basically give the officers carte blanche to pay themselves whatever they want.

Which do you think makes more sense for YOUR money?

Just a thought

c

More...

I don't see where it is that big of a stretch. The US Government attachs strings to bail out businesses. Why wouldn't the Chinese Government attach strings to bail out the US Government?

Obama is going around telling these companies what they can and can't do and the justification is that they recieved federal money and there are strings attached.

Why should it stop there? In all actuality, these companies did not recieve federal money. The federal government only acted as a middle man and the money really came from the Chinese. Doesn't all this borrowing from the Chinese give them the right to tell the US what they can and can't do, by the same logic Obama has put forward?

...The federal government only acted as a middle man and the money really came from the Chinese. Doesn't all this borrowing from the Chinese give them the right to tell the US what they can and can't do, by the same logic Obama has put forward?

Its just a thought.

More...

Banks are also middleman according to your explanation. People give money, government provide them for free the privilege to leverage, and they give out money.

The people also vote the government, and if applying will of people, the banks as middleman should listen.

Also, the Government has given money to banks which were under at the time. So any equity that built afterwards is thanks to the government, otherwise we would not have had banks saved.

So Obama is in his right to ask for pay cuts.

Also pay cuts is good for stocks (more money left).

Those who say more pay more production from CEO. That is bullshit. CEO do not really work, and do not have visions. Proof is they did not see it coming. CEOs are rubber stampers. Real workers are at the bottom, and the real real-workers are the customers working hard to pay loans. A good part of banks live on free money from spreads, between the people and the people.

I would do MORE IF I WERE OBAMA:

Any stocks/options that were owed by CEOs prior to the bailout should be voided. It is taking people's money by making those stocks/options still valid.

Those stock options/stock should be sent to social security or health care programs, help people without jobs create business. etc.